DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37727>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37727 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-12-03 22:04 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > OK, I understand where you're coming from now. My view is as long as we (the > libarary developers) haven't put anything that would prevent serializabilty > then thats good enough. If a user adds a non-serializable object as a > replacement parameter then thats their issue. <snip/> Seems quite reasonable. Personally, I'd be more comfortable if the Javadoc reflected that view (vaguely similar to how collections advertises the need for external synchronization schemes where needed). I'll propose a Javadoc patch for BasicMessage next. > Personally I would rather the webapp implementations were removed from Commons > Resources - it would be one less "off putting" dependency (even if it is > realistically optional) and theres so little to the implementations. I also > think we could probably refactor XMLResources and PropertyResources so that > its straightforward to customize how the InputStreanm is acquired - which > means Webapp implementations of these would be simpler to do. > I also think we should remove the ResourcesBundle implementation - the main > point of Commons Resources is to provide an alternative to that class - so I > don't see much merit in "wrapping it". <snap/> Thanks for your input. Maybe this should move to commons dev? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
